ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH "JOHN ANKERBERG?"

[sparkle]

Friends: Just read the most awful anti-Catholic brochure written by John Ankerberg, host of “The John Ankerberg Show”. Anyone heard of it? He has a Master’s Degree in “Church History”----sad–very questionable–as I’ve heard these Prot. seminaries don’t even read one thing about church history prior to 1500– He gets everything wrong and distorts everything about the CC, entitling his brochure “The Facts on Roman Catholicism”. He calls one of the Sacraments “participation in the Mass”, which by the way, he states further on in the brochure as “something Catholics think they need to do for salvation” and how it’s a “re-sacrificing Christ in the Mass.” SICK!

I’m planning on e-mailing him.

Thoughts? This makes me so sad, as I’m just beginning to see how brainwashed our Prot. brothers and sisters are.

 

[BibleReader]

sparkle:

Friends: Just read the most awful anti-Catholic brochure written by John Ankerberg, host of “The John Ankerberg Show”. Anyone heard of it? He has a Master’s Degree in “Church History”----sad–very questionable–as I’ve heard these Prot. seminaries don’t even read one thing about church history prior to 1500– He gets everything wrong and distorts everything about the CC, entitling his brochure “The Facts on Roman Catholicism”. He calls one of the Sacraments “participation in the Mass”, which by the way, he states further on in the brochure as “something Catholics think they need to do for salvation” and how it’s a “re-sacrificing Christ in the Mass.” SICK!

I’m planning on e-mailing him.

Thoughts? This makes me so sad, as I’m just beginning to see how brainwashed our Prot. brothers and sisters are.

Ankerberg is anti-Catholic, but he’s a pleasant anti-Catholic. Please e-mail him with charity.

 

[kaycee]

BibleReader:

Ankerberg is anti-Catholic, but he’s a pleasant anti-Catholic. Please e-mail him with charity.

What is a pleasant anti-Catholic?

Why are ALL protestant apologists automatically called Anti-Catholic?

Would it be fair to call all Catholic apologists Anti-Protestant?

 

[Ahimsa]

kaycee:

What is a pleasant anti-Catholic?

Why are ALL protestant apologists automatically called Anti-Catholic?

Would it be fair to call all Catholic apologists Anti-Protestant?

Ankerberg’s quite a character. I used to watch his TV show (along with Falwell’s, Swaggart’s, Bakker’s, and Robertson’s) back in the late '80s. He’s a real conservative (if not fundamentalist) Protestant, and (therefore) inherently antagonistic to Catholic faith. I wouldn’t say he’s anti-Catholic, but certainly anti-Catholicism.

Regarding emailing him: I’d figure out a better use of my time.

 

[NotWorthy]

kaycee:

What is a pleasant anti-Catholic?

Why are ALL protestant apologists automatically called Anti-Catholic?

Would it be fair to call all Catholic apologists Anti-Protestant?

When someone spends more time teaching why the Catholic Church is wrong then they do preaching the Good News of the Gospel… What else would you call him?

NotWorthy

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

sparkle:

Friends: Just read the most awful anti-Catholic brochure written by John Ankerberg, host of “The John Ankerberg Show”. Anyone heard of it? He has a Master’s Degree in “Church History”----sad–very questionable–as I’ve heard these Prot. seminaries don’t even read one thing about church history prior to 1500– He gets everything wrong and distorts everything about the CC, entitling his brochure “The Facts on Roman Catholicism”. He calls one of the Sacraments “participation in the Mass”, which by the way, he states further on in the brochure as “something Catholics think they need to do for salvation” and how it’s a “re-sacrificing Christ in the Mass.” SICK!

I’m planning on e-mailing him.

Thoughts? This makes me so sad, as I’m just beginning to see how brainwashed our Prot. brothers and sisters are.

I believe that is the blue colored one. I have read through it line by line and have used it in teaching apologetics.

 

[BibleReader]

kaycee:

What is a pleasant anti-Catholic?

Why are ALL protestant apologists automatically called Anti-Catholic?

Would it be fair to call all Catholic apologists Anti-Protestant?

Why do so many Protestant apologists, including John Ankerberg, find their identity in writing anti-Catholic tracts.

I have one right on my bookshelf.

Believe me, calling him “anti-Catholic” is not “automatic.” He really is actively, expressly “anti-Catholic.”

But, he is pleasant.

 

[Jaypeeto2]

I remember Ankerberg’s show.

He used to have Fr. Mitch Pacwa debate with “DOCTOR” (sic) Walter Martin about the truths and (alleged) falsehoods of Catholicism. The famous “DOCTOR” Martin got both his masters and Doctorate degrees from diploma mills.

Jaypeeto2

 

[Ambrose]

Jaypeeto2:

I remember Ankerberg’s show.

He used to have Fr. Mitch Pacwa debate with “DOCTOR” (sic) Walter Martin about the truths and (alleged) falsehoods of Catholicism. The famous “DOCTOR” Martin got both his masters and Doctorate degrees from diploma mills.

Jaypeeto2

I remember that show as well ! In fact I got the transcrpits from the show in order to explore my faith better. I used to think there were good arguements for their side before I got deeper into my Catholic faith as well. I’d love to see Jimmy Akin or one of our better apologists cross swords with him, but I believe Walter Martin has been dead for awhile now.

Hope he likes purgatory

 

[Dan-Man916]

John Ankerberg is either grossly misinformed, or greatly deceiving others.
I have flipped through his books. There is scant little that he gets correct about Catholicism.

 

[Malachi4U]

kaycee:

What is a pleasant anti-Catholic?

Go to Baptist.org and join in the forums. You will quickly find some hatefull anti-Catholic and some polite anti-Catholics. You’ll know the difference

To be more accurate, they are anti what they’ve been missled to believe about Catholics since they rerely get their facts straight and won’t believe us Catholics when we try to tell them what we acctually believe.

Why are ALL protestant apologists automatically called Anti-Catholic?

Good point.

Would it be fair to call all Catholic apologists Anti-Protestant?

Perhaps we use the wod “anti” to represent those who are rude and hatefull and spread lies. Techniquely though you may have another good point here.

 

[scylla]

Hello Kaycee,

non-catholics aren’t automatically called anti-catholic (this is a common comment of James White) but someone who actively misrepresents or attacks the Catholic Church generally is regarded as such. Dave Hunt or Jack Chick for example are some off the top of my head.

Someone who is trying to defend the truth or just correct mis-representations is not anti-protestant now if I make it a part of my profession attacking the protestant position then I can be considered anti-protestant, here is an example.

Lets say I write a book saying that Protestants worship Bibles and have replaced Jesus with Martin Luther their new savior. That would be anti-protestantism and just making a living attacking Protestants with mis-representation.

Someone who just defends Christian truths is not anti-catholic that is different from, defending the Westminster Confession which specifically calls the Pope the anti-christ that is attacking the Catholic Church which then becomes anti-catholicism.

God Bless you
Scylla

 

[PhilVaz]

I used to watch John Ankerberg “religiously” and have many of his past debates and programs. Yep Walter Martin used to be a regular guest (he died Summer 1989), along with Dave Hunt. I have the full 4-video tape set of the Martin vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa debates (from 1986 or 87, about 5 hours worth), which I thought were very enjoyable. Some of the best Catholic-Protestant debates out there.

I got completely turned off Ankerberg though around 1995 when he did that series of shows criticizing ECT with John MacArthur, D. James Kennedy, and R.C. Sproul which became an anti-Catholic hate fest. Very disappointing. Although Sproul can sometimes be fair and reasonable, can’t say the same for the others.

I corresponded with John Weldon a while back, Ankerberg’s co-author and primary researcher. I think the blame for “The Facts on Roman Catholicism” (1993) booklet and the “Catholics and Protestants: Do They Now Agree?” (1995) is John Weldon. From correspondence with him, I am under the impression he does all the writing of Ankerberg’s books. I have several of his old “Facts On” booklets, and others. Weldon is your target, who has a degree in “Comparative Religions” and generally writes good stuff on the New Age and pseudo-Christian cults, but his knowledge and critique of Catholicism is poor. Ankerberg just puts his name on those books.

Phil P

 

[Genesis315]

kaycee:

Why are ALL protestant apologists automatically called Anti-Catholic?

Would it be fair to call all Catholic apologists Anti-Protestant?

Protestants that misrepresent Catholic belief and spread revisionist history are anti-Catholic. Even if they are not doing it intentionally, they still haven’t read up on what Catholics actually believe so they can correct their errors. Usually they also accuse Catholics of not being Christian and then they damn us to hell.

As for anti-Protestant apologists, I haven’t really seen any that are faithful to Rome. Most are Feeneyites or other schismatics or dissenters.

 

[kaycee]

Jaypeeto2:

I remember Ankerberg’s show.

He used to have Fr. Mitch Pacwa debate with “DOCTOR” (sic) Walter Martin about the truths and (alleged) falsehoods of Catholicism. The famous “DOCTOR” Martin got both his masters and Doctorate degrees from diploma mills.
Jaypeeto2

Does this slur somehow change his arguments?

 

[PhilVaz]

KC << Does this slur somehow change his arguments? >>

No, and Martin did quite well (with help from Ankerberg and the announcer). As Karl Keating has pointed out before, it was really “3 against 1” nevertheless I score them as follows (out of 10 points).

Peter and Papacy: Pacwa 6, vs. Martin 4
Justification: Pacwa 5, vs. Martin 5 (several parts on this topic)
Purgatory: Pacwa 3, vs. Martin 7
Confession: Pacwa 6, vs. Martin 4
Mariology: Pacwa 7, vs. Martin 3
Saints: Pacwa 6, vs. Martin 4

Just a subjective scoring. I’ve watched these debates dozens of times. While I don’t think it was a slaughter, I give the edge to Pacwa despite it being an unfair 3 against 1.

Phil P

 

[RobNY]

PhilVaz:

I corresponded with John Weldon a while back, Ankerberg’s co-author and primary researcher. I think the blame for “The Facts on Roman Catholicism” (1993) booklet and the “Catholics and Protestants: Do They Now Agree?” (1995) is John Weldon. From correspondence with him, I am under the impression he does all the writing of Ankerberg’s books. I have several of his old “Facts On” booklets, and others. Weldon is your target, who has a degree in “Comparative Religions” and generally writes good stuff on the New Age and pseudo-Christian cults, but his knowledge and critique of Catholicism is poor. Ankerberg just puts his name on those books.

Phil P

So, does Ankerberg just say “I wash my hands of this?” If he’s putting his name on the book, he’s explicitly endorsing the contents. Yes, it makes it marginally better if he doesn’t actually subscribe to it, but he’s still using the respect people have for his name from his (I would guess) astute arguments and observations about Christianity, to support anti-Catholic nonsense. Do you understand where I’m coming from?

I must say though, I’m not familiar really with thse men.

 

[PhilVaz]

RobNY << If he’s putting his name on the book, he’s explicitly endorsing the contents. >>

Oh I’m not saying Ankerberg doesn’t endorse the contents, its just all the research, writing, and arguments in those books are Weldon’s. Plus they have Mike Gendron’s (www.pro-gospel.org) articles on their site which shows poor scholarship.

I really enjoyed some of his past debates, which I still have on videotape somewhere, such as the Pacwa vs. Martin marathon which I mentioned, plus the Walter Martin vs. John Spong (the apostate Episcopal bishop) which was also excellent. A few days after this debate, Martin died. So looks like Spong killed him. Just kidding.

Phil P

 

[paulrxp]

He’s still on every Sunday at 5:30pm. I tune in every so often because my Evangelical buddy always asks me my opinions on whatever the show topic is. Lately its been on End Times prophecy.

It’s funny because Ankerberg has this guy named Jimmy Deyoung on as his guest , and before Deyoung gets into his Rapture End Times exegesis Ankerberg introduces him and has to mention a gazzillion times how Deyoung lives in Israel, interviewed all the Prime Ministers as well as Arafat as if this somehow is supposed to make him an authority on eschatoligical events unfolding It’s astounding that these men have Ph.D’s and could even be considered scholars. Their Rapture theory isn’t even remotely logical, parsing verses, weaving events both Biblical and modern day with all sorts of conjecture and circular assumptions.

As for the Martin/Pacqua debate. Father Mitch owned Martin. All Martin did was ask questions, never had to answer any. Martin fell on his face when the Sola Scriptura subject came up. That was the nature of that so called debate, Ankerberg was by no means an impartial moderator but was and always is Martins wingman… Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists were also put through the ringer on that show and they were ripped apart by the sharks. Father Mitch was able to defend the faith all by himself. We didn’t need 2 Catholics against 2 Baptists. Just one smart Priest and the Truth